[Discussion] Morality Games - The Trolley Problem

[Claymantan]

If anyone's taken an intro to philosophy class, they're familiar with this problem. It was originally proposed by Philippa Foot. I'll give you guys her original scenario, and then a few modified versions. Discuss what you would do in each situation, and why:

General Scenario: You're walking past a pair of train tracks (Track A and Track B), which meet at a junction. A train is approaching towards the junction. It is automated with no driver, and has malfunctioned, preventing it from braking or changing course on its own. You notice that on Track A, there are five people gagged and bound to the tracks. On Track B, there is one person gagged and bound to the tracks. You cannot make out any features of these people (***, race, age, whatever). The train is on course to take Track A, and will kill the five people. You have just enough time to either do nothing, or get to the switch and change the train's course to Track B. If you do nothing, everyone on Track A dies, but the person on Track B lives. If you activate the switch, the five people on Track A are saved, but you kill the one person on Track B.

Scenario 1: Exactly as above. Do you change the train's course to save the five on Track A, but kill the one on Track B? Or do you do nothing? Why?

Scenario 2: The one person on Track B is an adult family member. You have never discussed this scenario with them, and have no idea what they would want you to do.

Scenario 3: The five people on Track A are adult family members. You have never discussed this scenario with them, and have no idea what they would want you to do. The one person on Track B is a child, who is a stranger.

Scenario 4: Track A is fully visible, but Track B is in a tunnel, and you cannot see if someone might be on the tracks. The people on Track A yell that there may be a person or persons on Track B, in the tunnel, but they don't know anything more. There is not enough time to get more information.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I take the Utilitarian choice every time. Though I've never heard of the fourth scenario. I guess because the tunnel is blocking the view of what may be there, I turn the train's course to move through that tunnel.

 

[Tyris]

In Chie we trust.

ot: 5>1, known>unknown, kid>family, watch the show and check tunnel for end credit reveal.

 

[ChicagoJhawk]

This reminds of Tokyo ghoul when he had to choose between saving the man or woman.


I think the first question is interesting because the train is originally going to hit the five people so if I change the course of the train I am ultimately controlling the death of one person but if I do nothing then I indirectly kill 5. To be honest you could run that scenario 100 times for me and I'd have a different action each time cuz I feel like it would depend on the moment and my instinct at that point

 

[DominiqueX]

I hate these imagined scenarios, because you can only do wrong with every possible choice. I'd probably do nothing unless members of my family are involved. And if this was the case, I'd be selfish enough to save their lives by other people's death.

 

[Claymantan]

I think the first question is interesting because the train is originally going to hit the five people so if I change the course of the train I am ultimately controlling the death of one person but if I do nothing then I indirectly kill 5.

Some people argue that the difference is moot, since your presence makes it equally likely that the train will go to either Track A or Track B, so you are, essentially, the switch, and the switch's default position is irrelevant, since it is undetermined due to your presence.

I hate these imagined scenarios, because you can only do wrong with every possible choice. I'd probably do nothing unless members of my family are involved. And if this was the case, I'd be selfish enough to save their lives by other people's death.

If you're doing what you think is right, why call it selfish or wrong? The point of these scenarios is to help people figure out what right and wrong are.

 

[Donald J Trump]

This isn't very hard to answer...
First of all you need to realise that there can be no "winner" after you realise that you need to figure out who is going to be sacrificed.

A: save 5
B: Don't want to kill so I choose 5 again.

C: 5>kid

D: majority wins again

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

S1: do nothing, id feel better about myself then if i switched the course. i mean if i didnt walk down that way those five people wouldve died either way, the train was already headed towards them. i could at least blame fate, also more lives doesnt decrease the value of another for me

S2: same as above

S3: in this scenario id probably change the course. some random kid's death might be a bit easier to swallow than my family's. especially if those family members had kids of their own to take care of. id feel bad either way but i think i'd feel a lot worst if i let it kill them, especially having to face the rest of my family members.

S4: id also change the course in this scenario. i know five people are gonna die for sure if i dont. theres a slight chance that someone may or may not die in this scenario. again i can blame fate if someone is in the tunnel and dies, i didnt ask for a tunnel to be there and i had no way of knowing

 

[DominiqueX]

If you're doing what you think is right, why call it selfish or wrong? The point of these scenarios is to help people figure out what right and wrong are.

Because I can't call it "right" to let someone die in order to save someone else, if the background of everyone is unknown.

I would see it as "right" to sacrifice a criminal, like, a murderer or a rapist, to save innocent people. But in this situation, we don't know that much about these people. Another problem is that I wouldn't want to save a criminal by sacrificing innocent people. I wouldn't forgive myself if the latter ever happened.

And to feel better only for myself, I'd save my family members since they are closer to me than a random person. As harsh as it may sound. Is that right? I'm sure it isn't.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

1. Save 5, I guess.

2. Save the family member.

3. Save the five family members.

4. Run it into the tunnel.

I remember a question like this in Hunter X Hunter but it was your wife or your mom, so pick any of the choices given and you're wrong.

Sometimes, there is no right option, and you just gotta do what you think is best. That being said, my answer #2 I'd do out of selfishness.

S1: do nothing, id feel better about myself then if i switched the course. i mean if i didnt walk down that way those five people wouldve died either way, the train was already headed towards them. i could at least blame fate, also more lives doesnt decrease the value of another for me

S2: same as above

S3: in this scenario id probably change the course. some random kid's death might be a bit easier to swallow than my family's. especially if those family members had kids of their own to take care of. id feel bad either way but i think i'd feel a lot worst if i let it kill them, especially having to face the rest of my family members.

S4: id also change the course in this scenario. i know five people are gonna die for sure if i dont. theres a slight chance that someone may or may not die in this scenario. again i can blame fate if someone is in the tunnel and dies, i didnt ask for a tunnel to be there and i had no way of knowing

You'd rather let some people die so you can feel good about yourself, is what I get from the first two. No offense.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

You'd rather let some people die so you can feel good about yourself, is what I get from the first two. No offense.

basically. if i switched the track id be intentionally murdering someone who would've survived if it wasn't for me. id have to actually put in effort to kill someone to save the others

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

basically. if i switched the track id be intentionally murdering someone who would've survived if it wasn't for me. id have to actually put in effort to kill someone to save the others

I guess I see it but if you could save more people then it shouldn't be something you can't live with.

 

[kimb]

I was literally just about to post some morality challenge scenarios just now. lmao

Guess I'll save my thread for another day.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

OP, what would you do?

 

[Claymantan]

I was literally just about to post some morality challenge scenarios just now. lmao

Guess I'll save my thread for another day.

You must be registered for see images

Because I can't call it "right" to let someone die in order to save someone else, if the background of everyone is unknown.

I would see it as "right" to sacrifice a criminal, like, a murderer or a rapist, to save innocent people. But in this situation, we don't know that much about these people. Another problem is that I wouldn't want to save a criminal by sacrificing innocent people. I wouldn't forgive myself if the latter ever happened.

And to feel better only for myself, I'd save my family members since they are closer to me than a random person. As harsh as it may sound. Is that right? I'm sure it isn't.

You could say that in a situation that you're forced into (in this scenario, you just stumble upon it, but you effectively are given no choice but to make a choice), where the options are suboptimal, there is no real obligation upon you to perform according to moral standards. And you could say that you have a duty to protect your family from random dangers. So the most moral actions you can make are either to do nothing, or to save your family. In which case, every decision you made is right.

OP, what would you do?

I made this thread mostly because I wasn't sure what I would do. I'm not really a Utilitarian, so I wouldn't default to "whatever creates the most happiness is what's right." I don't think that solution works either, since saving the five people might just create five miserable people, for all we know (survivor's guilt is a thing).

In Scenario 1, I would probably do nothing. I agree with what KonanX and some others said; the situation is somewhat contrived, and I feel like this takes the moral obligation off of someone who's confronted with the situation. Can you really be said to be morally obligated to kill someone?

In Scenario 2, I would save my family member. I prioritize the duty to my family over other duties (in other words, I couldn't really ever talk myself into letting my sister, for example, die xD).

In Scenario 3, I would save my family member, for the same reason as in Scenario 2.

In Scenario 4, I would send the train to the tunnel. I agree that a known is superior to an unknown, and it follows similar logic to Scenario 1; you're forced into a scenario that is somewhat contrived, and this should logically lift the moral obligation from you, because it's illogical to say that you're morally obligated to break morals.

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

I guess I see it but if you could save more people then it shouldn't be something you can't live with.

you can feel that way but like i said, more lives doesnt increase or decrease the value of another for me. those could be five shitty people for all i know and the one guy could be a humanitarian.

 

[Troyg39]

The train track scenario is a little different from what I remember. I don't remember the people being bound and gagged but I guess it's not really important.

OT: I'm not sure what I'd do in either case. I'm only human so I'd probably switch the tracks in your in each of your scenarios, including the family member, to save 5 lives. But that's also only because in your case you bound the people up. In all of the other versions I've heard this wasn't the case. Example the 5 are on one track eating and too far to hear while the one is on the other asleep. In the version like that it would still be possible for the man asleep to be awoken and make his way off the track in time if it were to be switched to his side, but no chance of that if he's bound up.

But anyway, I am familiar with this stuff. I think I remember though that you actually aren't supposed to take the utilitarianism approach. Or at least that was my professor's opinion, which I agreed with. Something about the whole "sacrificing for the majority" concept actually being counterproductive for a society. So the real answer to these problems isn't to think you're doing right by taking a life to save lives, but you're actually just supposed to do the best you can. If for you that's saving the 5, the 1, or doing nothing then so be it. Though "logical" it may be to save the 5 and sacrifice the 1, it isn't any more moral to to either one over the others. The value of life isn't measured in numbers

Good thing life isn't full of trolley problems though

 

[Claymantan]

The train track scenario is a little different from what I remember. I don't remember the people being bound and gagged but I guess it's not really important.

I was pre-empting people trying to say things like "I'd ask them what they want." xD And to prevent this answer:

In the version like that it would still be possible for the man asleep to be awoken and make his way off the track in time if it were to be switched to his side, but no chance of that if he's bound up.

I was more interested in the moral issue than actually finding "the best solution."

But anyway, I am familiar with this stuff. I think I remember though that you actually aren't supposed to take the utilitarianism approach. Or at least that was my professor's opinion, which I agreed with. Something about the whole "sacrificing for the majority" concept actually being counterproductive for a society. So the real answer to these problems isn't to think you're doing right by taking a life to save lives, but you're actually just supposed to do the best you can. If for you that's saving the 5, the 1, or doing nothing then so be it. Though "logical" it may be to save the 5 and sacrifice the 1, it isn't any more moral to to either one over the others. The value of life isn't measured in numbers.

I do agree with this, I don't think Utilitarianism applies here.

you can feel that way but like i said, more lives doesnt increase or decrease the value of another for me. those could be five shitty people for all i know and the one guy could be a humanitarian.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Sonnelion]

The true answer is to let them die because you will be charged with murder if that one person dies and the others witness, which they will.
I would just walk out of there since I did nothing wrong and no one would discover there bodies until afterwards simple as that.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Every single time, i do nothing, and watch as the Train driver brakes, saving everyone.

If there's a third mystery person with a gun to my head, who forces me to take one of the two options presented, and he's also cut the brakes on the train, and assuming there's no way i can overpower him and drop him on the tracks, then i would flip the switch in every situation, since i can't be prosecuted for anything i'm forced to do by this guy.